Man… I just adore simple solutions like Muxtape. Here’s a sample muxtape for reference.
Dead simple, absolutely clear, quenches a common thirst (sharing a collection of songs with a friend), can’t-mess-up easy (username, email, password then upload MP3s). For a tiny touch of personality you can change the color of the strip at the top of the screen.
I imagine this could get shut down, but I love the exercise in simple execution. There are so many ways this could have been complicated. Muxtape’s elegance demonstrates the power of sticking to the point.
Matt Lee
on 25 Mar 08Well, nobody’s forcing you to use works that prohibit sharing, right? You could make a mixtape of music from sources like Magnatune, or CC Mixter, which permit and encourage non-commercial personal sharing.
Lee
on 25 Mar 08I agree, it’s perfectly simple and will probably get shut down. While they do disclaim that you use must use free and clear content, they don’t enforce it—similar to what was Napster’s problem I think.
sudara
on 25 Mar 08I just launched a similar site in January called alonetone – it is an non-corporate home for DIY musicians… open source and everything.
I thought we were simple, but muxtape did a great job keeping it clean! Kudos to Justin and long live simple, cheap, and DIY web solutions to music distribution.
Mimo
on 25 Mar 08Muxtape and alonetone. Alonetone is cool for muscians to share their music. Muxtape is cool for everybody.
Mimo
on 25 Mar 08But alonetone seems cool. Well done sudara
Don Schenck
on 25 Mar 08Commence letter from RIAA lawyer in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Sam
on 25 Mar 08Pretty good.
One thing I really think it needs, though (and I know the simplicity purists will cry feature creep), is a basic playhead / playback bar for the currently playing track.
If someone shared a bunch of unknown songs with me, I’d like to be able to quickly preview them. The best way to do that is to skip ahead to random points in the track.
But maybe that’s just me.
JF
on 25 Mar 08One thing I really think it needs, though (and I know the simplicity purists will cry feature creep), is a basic playhead / playback bar for the currently playing track.
A perfect example of a want being positioned as a need. This is exactly where projects start getting lost. When needs are confused with wants.
”...it needs…” vs ”...it would be nice if…”
This is clearly “a would be nice if” feature from your point of view. I think if you started pitching it a want you’d have better success seeing it implemented. Throwing a “it needs” at the developer only breeds animosity. “Need” is a red flag word – it shuts down discussion. A necessity is a necessity. No room for discussion. Needs are absolute.
I know you weren’t suggesting that, but I wanted to use this as an example of how a simple word can carry so much weight. Words change everything.
Eric
on 25 Mar 08muxtapelist is a list of muxtapes. Tumblr users can add their own.
Don Schenck
on 25 Mar 08I NEED a MINI Cooper … my wife better get on board with that idea!
Thanks for the tip, Jason! All this time I’ve been saying “It’d be nice if I had a MINI Cooper…”.
weird
on 25 Mar 08this just in via swissmiss: mixwit
Akeem
on 25 Mar 08This is pretty bad ace. I wonder if they could elude legal woes by using the last.fm api.
Evan
on 25 Mar 08It’s a pretty sweet looking service. I hope it stays around and stays as simple as possible. Less is more!
Eric
on 25 Mar 08I love this in the javascript source for the songs:
PLEASE=DO_NOT_DOWNLOAD
Michael
on 25 Mar 08I absolutely love the simplicity here.
Here’s a Google query to pull up more muxtapes. Unfortunately, there are only 4, so perhaps it’s better to use some of the lists that have been commented about already. site:muxtape.com songs
Grant
on 25 Mar 08This is really fun. And the simplicity of it makes me happy.
condor
on 25 Mar 08I’m sold.
At first I thought I’d reached the page version formated for the iphone by mistake
just curious why this would get shut down over imeem?
A A Khan
on 25 Mar 08Huh. How do you post your muxtape to that muxtapelist? I spent 15 minutes trying to figure it out. I clicked the join link, but it just redirects me to the dashboard…
anson
on 25 Mar 08Very simple, but I find the font-size of the track names just a TAD large. I know there’s a cool-factor in over-sized type but it means you can only see about half the tape on screen.
I think a volume control would have been nice, too.
Sam
on 26 Mar 08I knew I’d get picked on! :) That’s OK. I still stand by my word choice.
“It would be nice if…” means “I can use this product, but it would be even better if…”
“I think it needs…” means “I can’t use this product because…”
It’s not a “would be nice if” feature for me. It was driving me completely nutters not being able to rewind or fast-forward the current track. I can’t use the service as-is. I think it needs the feature I listed.
“I think” is a crucial part of that phrase. It shows that I understand my needs are not the same as everyone else’s. The feature is something I need; it is not a universal need.
Most of the other commenters are super-psyched about the service. The dev team should be proud. I definitely hope they don’t compromise their product vision to meet my needs above everyone else’s!
David Andersen
on 26 Mar 08Yeah it’s real simple:
Users may not upload multiple songs from the same album or artist, or songs they do not have permission to let Muxtape use. Individual users may not create multiple muxtapes.
So simple as to be almost pointless.
David Andersen
on 26 Mar 08Throwing a “it needs” at the developer only breeds animosity. “Need” is a red flag word – it shuts down discussion.
I’d say said developer needs to pull his head out of his *ss and be more professional.
Chris Kelley
on 26 Mar 08@anson I agree, I like nice big legible type but for a list with 11 items, I should be able to see it all above the fold.
A glance over Fitts’ Law wouldn’t hurt their usability.
Chris Kelley
on 26 Mar 08Edit: To be constructive, here is a great article by Kevin Hale about the relevance of Fitts’ Law in the situation: Visualizing Fitts’ Law
FTA: ”...this characterization includes a logarithmic function – which means that the shape of the relationship between size and reaction time is curved so that small increases in size for small objects make it much easier to select them (whereas small increases in size for big objects don’t make that much difference). And the same applies for changes in target distance.”
So in this situation, they could still have over-sized list items, but maybe not quite as large as they are.
David Andersen
on 26 Mar 08And to expand on my prior comment about the unprofessional developer, I empathize that developers are probably calloused from dealing with requests from people who don’t think through the implications of their request or don’t have the domain knowledge to understand the implications or who simply don’t have a clue.
Nevertheless, few of us can afford not to have customers and I think the attitude expressed by JF needs to be more considerate and collaborative. I've dealt with developers who think of their creations mostly as artistic achievement (which it certainly can be) and take any suggestion for change - no matter how it's delivered - as a personal insult. Developers like that are no fun to work with and I suspect their work suffers in the long run.Mike Hagstrom
on 26 Mar 08@anson & @Chris
What exactly is the fold… its different for everyone with a multitude of different screen resolutions out there a web designer could never get it perfect, but these guys did a great job of creating text that can scale via ctrl++ and ctrl—
Now instead of enabling the user to have to go into a settings page and pick the font size they would like, they use the browsers controls to do it for them, thats simplicity
beto
on 26 Mar 08I gotta agree with your impressions here. What’s not to like about the way you get from first impression to actually using it in a matter of seconds? If that’s not great usability for you I don’t know what it is. No BS, straight to the point indeed. Love it, from that point of view. That said, shame on the RIAA in advance, as it doesn’t take much brains to imagine their army of lawyers going after this guy’s behind once this hits Digg big time. Sad.
Brad
on 26 Mar 08@beto – shame on the RIAA for protecting artists’ rights to collect monetary compensation for their work? I don’t get it.
Clearly the music industry model as it stands is broken; clearly the artists aren’t getting enough from their contracts; clearly the consumers want better options for buying music; clearly change is in order.
But lets not forget that the artists willingly opted in to these contracts, and as such, they do deserve whatever compensation they’re owed. We have no right to cheat them of that. If artists thought they could do better giving their music away for free, they would.
If, as the argument goes, artists are not getting enough out of their contracts, they should be creative in solving that problem. Go on strike. Or something else. Nothing about their contract problems, however, gives us license to wantonly steal their music.
At the same time, if we’re not getting enough for our money, we should be creative in solving that problem. Boycott the record companies or something. It’s not like listening to the Raconteurs is some inalienable right that, morally, we cannot be denied—if the CD or song is overvalued, don’t buy or listen to it. Nothing inherent to the problem of overpriced music gives us the moral legitimacy to steal it.
Even if this site is ultimately good for record sales and for the artists, we shouldn’t have to resort to illegal means to make the point.
I truthfully don’t understand the counter-arguments to the points I’m making, here. Aren’t we just being greedy, demanding music for free?
That said, neat site. It is crazy simple. Too bad it takes advantage of artists.
Brad
on 26 Mar 08I should say that the site itself isn’t taking advantage of artists, but the way people are inevitably going to use it will. It’s not like the RIAA has no point.
peter
on 26 Mar 08Wow, muxtape is the best. It’s like that camera device that’s so popular these days. He’s better than you guys :)
Chris Kelley
on 26 Mar 08@Mike Of course, the fold is relative to screen res – it’s a fairly general term – but I’m running at 1440×900 and with the window maxed muxtape only shows me 6 tracks (before scrolling) by default. Sure, Ctrl—is easy for me to resize type, but if we’re talking about simplicity client-side, wouldn’t it be easier for them to choose 24pt type instead of 60pt? Just as legible and saves me a step, which as UI designers is a top priority.
Don’t get me wrong, muxtape’s simplicity is certainly well done and refreshing. I’m just tryin to create discussion.
Ryan
on 26 Mar 08Mixwit (www.mixwit.com) does a much better job at creating the true mixtape experience
Ewen
on 26 Mar 08Maybe i’m just getting old but i think this is perfect, the way it mirrors an old school mix tape. if someone takes the time to make me a mix tape, i’m not gonna fast forward through a track. just put it on, sit back and enjoy. people want too much control these days.
and from a design point of view, its perfect. hope muxtape sticks around.
thp
on 26 Mar 08That’s ace. Who remembers making mixtapes for girls? Now you just send a URL. Mega.
Lisa
on 26 Mar 08Mixtapes… the best way to tell a crush you like them. Can you only make 1 acct per email address, though? Isn’t the point of a mixtape to customize it for someone? This only allows me to customize for one person (at a time)
Austin
on 26 Mar 08@Chris Kelley and whole fold discussion
This is speculation but I believe the large text may have been purposeful in preserving the “feeling” of a mixtape as opposed to a playlist. A playlist is just that, a list of songs. There is no holistic sense with the songs. A mixtape is more of a finished product, it is created as a whole (well traditionally at least) to give the listener a complete experience. And back in the day, you just popped it in the tape deck and listened, you weren’t concentrating on the track names unless something good came up and you wanted to check. You subscribed to the creator’s control, and went for the ride.
Long story short, in making the font too big for your screen, and detracting from the ease of seeing the mixtape as a whole, it lends a more mystic quality, and gives the experience more ‘mixtape’ credibility.
IMHO.
David Andersen
on 26 Mar 08How apropos.
Chris Kelley
on 26 Mar 08@Austin I’ll take that, nice angle.
Jeppe
on 27 Mar 08Hey, I wanted to build that! Seriously, this is incredibly intelligent design. I’m a sucker for such a thing. Whenever IM or email freaks out, I’ve handed my friends Muxtape to send me demos. And everybody reacts by saying how smart and cool it works.
b l i x
on 28 Mar 08I think it’s just great.
This discussion is closed.